Gender Trouble: Response

Butler’s argument that both gender and sex are culturally constructed as well as performative reminds me of our discussion of Sedgwick from last week.  In order to have one concept, it must be mirrored against another; much as heterosexuality is not possible without homosexuality, maleness is not possible without femaleness (sex), and masculinity is not possible without femininity (gender).  I am frustrated, as is Butler, with the idea that there is a male/masculine “default” setting when discussing “human” issues.  This is further compounded when bringing race into question; white is the “default” setting of queer studies, which is disappointing.  The idea that was brought up in class last week, that some consider “Queer Studies,” with a capital “Q” and “S” to signify some kind of absolute truth, is additionally stifling because, to me (based on the conversations we’ve had in class and elsewhere), queer studies is more about challenging existing power structures than assessing sexuality and gender presentation, especially because the structures being challenged are those constructed within dominant white Euro-American experiences.  These conversations are, of course, integral to queer studies discourse, but they are only one piece of the puzzle, and need to be viewed as such.  Gender should be considered as a spectrum rather than a binary, and subaltern understandings of gender, sexuality, and expression should be incorporated more often into queer studies curricula (which is one of many, many reasons I feel fortunate and grateful to be in this particular program).  

One of the things that I very much appreciated about Butler’s work is the notion that gender, as performative, is fluid and ever-changing.  This reminds me of our discussions (based on Foucault’s work) about how power is also changing, and has led me to consider the ways that an ever-changing power structure combined with an ever-evolving gender spectrum can coexist in a way that is conducive to positive social change.  That is wordy, but I mean to say that if power is always moving and changing hands, then there should be a way for subversive gender expression to wrangle that power and make positive changes.  I think that on an individual level we can, as Butler suggests, challenge gender through performance (p. xxxi).  This is something I try to do often, and is especially gratifying when I am with my partner.  On my own, I have a degree of heterosexual privilege based on my appearance (see my earlier post on bio-power), but when I go out with my fiancée our combined gender presentations paired with our evident sexual “deviance” creates an interesting array of responses.  My partner is the more “masculine” and I the more “feminine,” but our experiences challenge the roles most people associate with these identities.  Neither of us identify as lesbians, but based on appearance, my partner is assumed to be ”more queer” than I, which is in fact not the case.  If we were to place ourselves on the omnipresent Kinsey scale, I would be a 5 (primarily homosexual) and my partner a 3 (closer to heterosexual, or evenly bisexual).  

This is an important distinction from gender presentation and performance, which is equally exciting for me.  My favorite story to tell is from when we first moved into our house; I was wearing a miniskirt and using power tools to put together a table on the kitchen floor while my partner, dressed in cargo shorts and a T-shirt was trimming curtains to hang in the hallway closet.  At the time we laughed to each other, but it has become a lasting anecdote of the ways that we challenge preconceived notions of both gender and sexuality as a couple and as individuals.  

As we have discussed before, specifically with respect to Sedgwick, Butler’s work may seem slightly outdated but is also incredibly important.  We cannot forget that without their work we would most likely not be having these conversations, but we must also remember that theirs are steps in our journey of social justice.  We can acknowledge their importance, but also step back and consider their work within larger systems of oppression such as race, ability, language, age, and several of the other ”isms” that we continue to discuss.    

Sex as Oppression

Here is my critical response, let me know what you think. Not sure if I fully grasped Butler, so feedback and possibly clarification would be great :)

The beginning of Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity caused me to think back to Foucault and Bio-Power. Butler writes, “Power seemed to be more than an exchange between subjects or a relation of constant inversion between a subject and an Other; indeed, power appeared to operate in the production of that very binary frame of thinking about gender,” (2). Butler goes on to discuss the relationship between men and women, questioning the “internal stability” and the “extent that they conform to a heterosexual matrix for conceptualizing gender and desire,” (2). It was her ponderings in relation to my opinions and experiences with Bio-power that caused my intrigue.

In my Bio-power presentation I discussed that my being a woman was an area where I was a member of a population that was subject to oppressive behaviors and techniques. I had viewed woman as my sex and gender, my identity; however, through Butler’s work I have developed different conclusions not only about my own self-portrayal but how I am anticipated to be portrayed by those holding power over me.

Butler discusses the meanings of gender and sex; one socially constructed the other biological. Women are biologically created different from a man but those differences have been used to stunt the abilities of women in eyes of society. Women have breasts, not for breastfeeding but for show, to be push-up and pushed out. The body shape of women is not seen as a body but an object of sex that is to be conceptualized and fantasized. The biological components of women have unintentionally generated the social construct of the female ‘gender’; the conceptualization of the biological differences between male and female are used as the techniques to oppress and restrict both the male and female populations. Women are portrayed as slender, big breasted and gorgeous; those who do not fit within those standards strive to. Men are intended to have tight and fit bodies, so they can be attractive enough to be with a slender, big-breasted and gorgeous woman.

As a thicker, curvier, and shorter woman I have often times felt the societal pressures to alter my shape in order to fit within the confines of the gender normality that society has imposed. I now see that it my conceptualized sex that has been misinterpreted and misrepresented, that allows for these gender conceptualizations to hold power over myself and other woman. I do, however think it is also important to note that the male sex has also been misinterpreted as well, causing similar gender constructs to be created. Men may not be expected to have large breasts, a flat stomach, and an apple bottom; but they are typically expected to be a man’s man, fit, attractive and packing considerably sized equipment.

Society has confused gender and sex, but more than that sex has been mutated into a tool of oppression, a tool that is used to promote the inaccurate conceptualizations of both sexes. Attempting to force the male and female sexes to conform within in the limiting constructs of what is considered gender normative. 

Greetings class!  Below is my critical response to Judith Butler's, Gender Trouble. Seeing that the text is over two decades old now (and yet still very relevant to our lives), I tried to relate some of Butler's concepts to contemporary phenomenons.  I chose to use the concept of performativity to ask questions about pinterest.com and its relationship to our concepts of gender and sex, as well as how they both relate to consumption.  Enjoy!

Judith Butler begins a genealogy of gender ontology with Simone De Beauvoir’s famous assertion, “One is not born a woman, but rather one becomes a woman.”  Just how one becomes, is, or exists as a woman is the general pursuit of Butler’s inquiry, with an explicit focus on the discursive production of binary relations and the suggestion that cultural constructions of gender are produced as “real” through “self-naturalization.”  This “self-naturalization” process denotes what it is to be a woman or a man, and that gender is constructed through the naturalization of notions of biological sex.  To counter the process of naturalizing a biological sex, Butler suggests that sex is constructed in the same way as gender, and that the two are intrinsically linked.  Therefore, biological constructions of “gender identity” behind the performance of gender are linked to the outcomes of gendered performances.  Therefore, the performance of gender denotes both gendered expression and notions of biological sex.  In this brief paper, I’d like to build on this notion of performativity as process for constructing notions of biologically innate characteristics.  Specifically, I’d like to explore the ways in which our consumption practices are linked to ideologies of gender expression and biological sex.

            Building on Nietzsche’s concept of “the doer” and “the deed,” Butler builds the theoretical construct of gender performativity.  According to Butler, “There is no gender identity behind the expression of gender; that identity is performatively constituted by the very ‘expressions’ that are said to be its results;” thereby, outcome of gender expression builds notions of gender identity that are innate, rather than constructed (33).  In this sense, gender identity and gender expression cannot be separated, as the expression constructions the identity.  It is from this concept that Butler connects sex and gender, two concepts previously separated by feminist scholars as a political tool.  However, as Butler would contend, sex and gender and intrinsically linked and simultaneously constructed through the performance of gender.  It is this performance, in essence, that constructs notions of biology and expression.

            As Butler would contend, the simultaneous construction of both sex and gender is not a mere coincidence, but rather, in service of institutions of power.  In fact, Butler argues that the construction of “intelligible genders” services and maintains institutions that rely on “relations of coherence and continuity among sex, gender, sexual practice, and desire” (23).  Both Irigaray and Butler would contend that this represents a “phallogocentric signifying economy,” or rather, political economies reliant on social, legal, and political organizations of sex and gender.  Building on this concept of “phallogocentric signifying economy,” I would like to contend here that our consumption practices both service institutions, as well as organize sex and gender.  Furthermore, an intersectional analysis of this concept would reveal that phallogocentrism organizes not only sex and gender, but also race, class, and citizenship.  And that participation in a phallogocentric economy is performative and naturalized through discursive formations of innate biological identities.

              Gendered performances are easily spotted in contemporary cultures.  While the performance of gender is both historically and socially contextual, culturally rooted analysis could unveil a variety of the ways in which normative gender practices are encouraged and performative.  For instance, I can find no better example of contemporary “feminine” gender performativity than that of the social media website, pinterest.com.  Cultural critiques of pinterest point to the ways in which it predominately encourages feminine and traditional behaviors, such as dream weddings, baking game day treats “for him,” and DIY ombre hair color.  Now, the context of this paper is not to argue whether this is a “good” or “bad” trend, but rather, I hope to point to the extent in which this supports both the performativity of gender (in the same way that Butler points to drag and hyper-performativity), as well as the way these performances are related to our consumption practices.  Further, if we follow Butler’s argument that gender and sex cannot be separated, then it must follow that performances of gender on websites such as pinterest.com also point to our understandings of an “innate gender” or sex. 

            Gender performativity, following Butler’s argument, is in service of certain institutions of power.  Further building on Foucault’s concept of bio-power, gender performativity can be understood as organized to service Capitalist projects.  Therefore, the extent to which pinterest is gendered (which I am going to make the claim that it is), then we can make the connection to pinterest’s “feminine” appeal to its Capitalist ventures.  In fact, according to recent critiques of pinterest, the website “drives more traffic to marthastewart.com and marthastewartweddings.com than Facebook and Twitter combined,” making it a powerful force for marketing to certain types of consumers (Odell).  Certainly, this is not great leap or connection to make, but what I intended to illicit here is that this Capitalist venture is not possible without a neat organization of gendered expression.  And following Butler’s claims that the expression and identity are linked, I question the message that overtly “feminine” or “masculine” marketing codes send about our “innate being” or identity.  The question then becomes, are cultural understandings of gendered biology constructed throughout purchases?  Does marketing and consumption drive our understanding of “the real,” biological, and innate? 

References:

Butler, Judith (1990, 1999).  Gender Trouble:  Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge.

Odell, Amy. (2012)  “How Pinterest is Killing Feminism.”  Buzzfeed.com.  Retrieved from:  http://www.buzzfeed.com/amyodell/how-pinterest-is-killing-feminism

More Bio-Power!

This project challenged me in ways I was not anticipating.  I sometimes forget that I have to use new technology and work outside of my paper-writing comfort zone.  My math skills definitely got some practice with this, since I had to translate my social privileges into numerical values in order to graph them.  The most difficult aspect, however, was considering my social location as able to be pinpointed and as resulting from the various “-isms” that have funneled me into different categories throughout my life.  I have always theoretically understood that I am a product of my environment and that my race, gender, and sexual orientation have definitely impacted that, but to consider the broader systemic implications of all of my identifiers was incredibly eye-opening.

  To begin “mapping” myself, I made a list of all of the “-isms,” identifiers, or oppressions that pertain to me.  I then wrote the following short piece that I had planned to turn into a word map, expecting that it would draw out my social location for me: 

My position is one of considerable privilege.  I am white from a middle-class family with a neutral, “white sounding” last name.  I am at an age where I am neither criticized for being too young and inexperienced nor too old and potentially over-qualified, and I am the most educated member of my extended family.  I am a U.S. citizen, in good physical health, and fit dominant notions of accepted physical attractiveness.  My biological sex and gender identity match and I fall within a culturally accepted gender category.  I was biologically conceived by a married mother and father and, as far as I know, am capable of bearing my own children.  The religious tradition in which I was raised is not visibly apparent and, if it were, it is widely accepted as within the norm in the U.S.  I speak American English without any noticeable accent, the fact that I am bilingual is not associated with my race, and I have been able to travel extensively.

A middle-class upbringing means that I am accustomed to home and vehicle ownership and a considerable degree of financial security.  We never bought new cars, but in our family of four we always had at least two insured cars.  We were able to travel to see family in other parts of the country, we always had gifts at birthdays and holidays, in my case Christmas.  We were able to take relatively expensive ski vacations, and went to Disney World.  I attended high quality public schools which had primarily white middle-class students.  I was able to attend college with help from my family and did not need to rely solely on loans or scholarships, and was able to study abroad and travel.

The two major “-isms” that affect me are sexism and heterosexism.  Being queer and seeing through a queer lens while not necessarily being seen as queer manifests itself in distinct ways.  When I am alone I navigate with a degree of heterosexual privilege because of my femme appearance, but this disappears when I am with my partner or other visibly queer friends.  An interesting complication happens when I become visibly queer, and that is I am less prone to be targeted with sexist or predatory advances from straight men.  My queerness is further invisibilized because of my engagement ring and the gender-neutral pronunciation of “fiancée.”  As a result, I must constantly “out” myself in order to be seen as queer.  

If only it were that simple.  The resulting word cloud was pretty, but not nearly as complex as the systems and intersections I was hoping to represent.  It wasn’t all for naught, however, because by writing it I was better able to situate myself and get a better perspective of where I have privilege.  After deciding I would try a bubble chart on infogram, I got stuck when I wasn’t able to “graph” my privilege the way that I wanted.  The suggestions and discussion in class on Tuesday were quite helpful and I was finally able to translate my qualitative understandings into quantitative representations.  I had to figure out the columns in the existing chart so that I could change the location and size of the bubbles, which took a few tries, but I finally got it.  I then assigned a value between 1,000 and 1,000,000, since the graph was already on such a large scale, to the level of privilege I experience within a give spectrum.  For example, I associated being white with the most privilege which meant I entered 1,000,000.  Giving numerical value to my social privilege felt uncomfortable, but in a profound way that definitely impacted my concept of privilege as social capital.  

Once I was able to manipulate the size of the bubbles in the chart, I wanted to spread them out so that they didn’t look uniform and linear.  I spent quite a bit of time going through different options for how to organize them, but I kept coming up with too many contradictions.  I considered assigning designations such as “primary identifiers” and “secondary identifiers” in order to rank them, but the constantly changing landscape of social interaction is such that what seems like a primary identifier, such as race, can become secondary or even tertiary in some situations.  I finally settled on making it as random as possible to demonstrate the constant shifting of privilege and bio-power.  

The most challenging part of this project, but also the most educational, was the visual representation of space.  I am able to see the space that my privilege takes as space that is taken away from others.  The places where I maneuver with ease are places where others do not, and this is an intentional systemic occurrence.  In order to make this even more visually powerful, I made a corresponding map of a queer, undocumented, illiterate, transwoman of color whose primary language is not English.  This highlighted the scope of my privilege more than my own map alone as well as the scope of systemic oppressions.  I also made a final word map with this entire reflection, which further highlighted my privilege, literally.  

This project should be a requirement for every Women Studies major, if not for every student.  It is one thing to sit in a class and discuss privilege, but to see it in a different light is instrumental in understanding and operating as a conscious human.  It is especially useful to have had the freedom to design my map however I wanted because the end result is something that makes sense to me and helps me to visualize my place in the world, which is something that I have often been afforded the privilege of not needing to do.  I plan on hanging these up in my office to continue to remind and inspire me why I do the work I do.  

Questioning the Common Interpretation of Literary Influences

The Epistemology of the Closet by Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, covered a wide range of topics relating to the homosexual and heterosexual binaries. The section in which she spoke of literature within the context of homo- and heterosexuality suggested an interesting theory questioning the interpretation of some central literary figures, such as Shakespeare, Socrates and Proust. This section primarily intrigued me because of my English background as it is the degree I will be receiving in June. I have taken courses in lesbian and gay literature as well as an endless amount of courses discussing “heterosexual” literature, through an expansive time period. Sedgwick’s thoughts on the ideas of sexual orientation within literature as well as of the authors themselves made me consider the implications of the work I have been engaged in for the past four years and all my life.

            Sedgwick writes, “It is with these complications that the relation between lesbian and gay literature as a minority canon, and the process of making salient the homosocial, homosexual, and homophobic strains and torsions in the already existing master-canon, becomes especially revealing,” (51). This struck me, because having taken courses on both subjects, but never one course that encompasses both. It made me question the idea of separating the two into separate fields, therefore acknowledging that separation, creating a preconceived notion that the two are not linked, when in fact, they are inherently intertwined.

            It is not simply the idea that there was queer sexuality within the works of those referenced above, as at least in Shakespeare’s case, there is evidence to support the probability of queer identities within his plays and certain sonnets. It is the idea that these two forms of literature are separate, when in fact their commonalities should bring them together. It was a requirement of my degree to take certain literature classes, none of which discussed queer literature or even discussed the idea of queer identities within the texts we read. I elected to take a course in gay and lesbian literature, and in that class we focused on texts that explicitly depicted gay and lesbian relationships with no room to debate any thought of an alternative orientation. When most English courses focus on a specific time period or theme it would be simple to incorporate texts that discussed both homo- and heterosexual relationships or to explore the possibility to create discourse about ‘heterosexual’ texts with a queer understanding.

            When looking through some of Shakespeare’s work, Sonnet 20 and 126, Henry V, As You Like It, Twelfth Night, Othello; to go beyond Shakespeare and consider Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities. I have encountered essays that theorize the relationship of Sydney Carton and Charles Darnay, (A Tale of Two Cities) as more than a brief acquainted relationship, but a distant one sided love; of course, this possibility is never considered as it is assumed that the text is heterosexual, due to the lack of generalized homosexual behaviors. As Sedgwick writes, “Same-sex genital relationships may have been perfectly common during the period under discussion—but since there was no language about them, they have been completely meaningless,” (52); meaningless as well as ignored and without consideration.

In multiple situations I have suggested the idea of same-sex relations within the works of Shakespeare, Dickens, George Herbet, John Donne, and various others, but those notions are often dismissed as an “interesting reading’, or “I wouldn’t go so far”, but why not go that far? The interpretation of these texts as possibly queer seems to be taboo, when in truth the real intended interpretation is unknown, so why not consider a queer reading?

It would be easy to have discourse on the ideas that support the possibility of queer identities being incorporated into the “master-canon”, therefore stripping queer literature of its identity as a minority-canon, as it is heavily ingrained within widely taught and appreciated texts. 

Bio-Power Presentation and Reflection

           Through this project I was able to delve deeper into my person and better understand my relations to power and how those relationships affect me or how I allow them to affect me. This project also presented me with challenges that I face because of power relationships as well as the obstacles that I have created myself and now realize that I have made challenges for myself. Also, through the peer review for this project, I was able to see the similarities and differences in the power relationships between different people. It was through experiencing other people’s bio-power relationships that I was able to gain a better understanding of what queer studies are.

            The creation of this project forced me to think about how I view myself, and what labels I want to be associated with, but then it also caused me to question those labels. I sought out why I chose those labels or why I had for so long been avoiding them. In my presentation, I start off with descriptors that I associate myself with, one of which is ‘bisexual’. This was the most difficult term for me to associate with as it has been a poorly defined term in my past. It has been a term of ridicule, disbelief, confusion, and disdain; therefore I have tried to never relate that word to my sexuality, as it has always been negative. I came out as a lesbian, but then realized that it didn’t fit, but neither did straight. When I first told people that I was bisexual they instantly assumed I was going through a phase, or that I slept around, so I decided that I was sexually fluid, without a label. It was through this project and conversations with other classmates that I was able to realize that being bisexual isn’t negative. I have been conditioned to think so through the terms that I have been associated with it due to the power other institutions have over the bisexual population. It was this project that helped me come to the realization that I can be proud to be bisexual and that it doesn’t have to come with a negative connotation, unless I allow it.

            This project also helped me realized that I take the power that I have for granted. I am educated, in this instance I am the dominate one in the power relationship, but I never really realized it before. I had taken my education for granted, not really investing in my education, knowing that I had this opportunity and that it wasn’t going anywhere. This project helped me realize that this is an area where I have the power to succeed but I have been my own obstacle by not allowing myself to reach my full potential and get everything out of my education, (my parents would be thrilled to hear me say that). This is an area that I need to work on, currently it is what I would view as a weakness but I know that it should be a strength and that is what I strive for.

            Through the peer review I was able to look at the power relationships of another person, who was very different than I. I will admit that I had difficulty critiquing the project. The project was well done and there was a clear and evident understanding of bio-power, so I did not feel that much critique was necessary. I found that by reviewing their work, it made me internally critique my own, but then I realized that our bio-maps would never be similar because we have different attributes that cause us to experience bio-power differently. I found this realization to be the most important, I knew that bio-power wasn’t the same for all people but it was interesting to have evidence of it.

            The experience of creating the project alongside completing the peer review has helped me have a better handle on the definition of queer studies, but at the same time I am still left unsure. When I first enrolled in the class I believed that ‘queer’ only applied to sexual orientations other than heterosexual, when in fact it expands further. I now believe that ‘queer’ relates to the idea of anyone or any experience that is not of the majority; a person, population, experience that was or still continues to be under the power of another institution. Queer studies seem to be the study of oppression, or at least that is what I believe thus far. 


http://prezi.com/tx4mp8ujelqn/bio-power/?kw=view-tx4mp8ujelqn&rc=ref-34077181

The film, How to survive a plague, documented a few of the leaders of the organization Act Up during the 80s and 90s and their personal, political and social struggles of being diagnosed with AIDS.The film follows two main tracks of the personal stories and interactions of these activists and the political journey of the organization; as the activists are the leaders of the organization their stories are intertwined making the political personal and making the stories of the activists extremely unique. The film is seemingly trying to capture the struggles of the gay male community that was diagnosed, living, fighting and dying from AIDS. This highlights an interesting intersection then of who is representing that community and what power they hold in that organization.
The intersection is called bio-power (Foucault)  where ones genetic make up holds a social value giving one more or less mobility in a society. In this case the society was within the Act Up organization but much their mobility was permitted by the value that the activists had previously to holding these positions. All of them were men (except maybe two or three women who played more supporting roles in the fight), white, tall, and fit all of which are necessities of the ideal man in American culture. They were all well educated an many had very respectable jobs previous to their activist work in Act Up. Perhaps the only 'downfall' to their social status in the current culture (the 80s and 90s) was that most if not all were gay. Was it because of their fit to the American standard of being male that they were able to gain their positions and power in Act Up?
The characteristics shared by each of these activists are very particular and in no way representative of the entire gay/ AIDS population.Yet in the film they are presented as a sample of people that accurately narrate the struggles of that population; however the activists are extremely mobile within the confines of those struggles. How would the story told be different for a poor, disabled woman of color was one of the main activists. Would Act Up or any group of those have been able to make as great of strides as the actual activists did in the film?
These are all very cut and dry approaches yet I feel it is important to examine what is staring you in the face. There is an obvious imbalance of power as seen in who is being portrayed in the film.While there may have been factors outside of the bio-power of the activists which moved them into the leadership roles, it is more likely it was due to their social status and 'maleness' that made them the prime choice.

With Power Must Come Knowledge.

The documentary brought me back to Foucault and his ‘Rule of Immanence’, seeing power and knowledge as continuously connected. At first the documentary seemed to encompass Foucault’s ideal, Larry Kramer made a comment in the video informing the viewer that individuals had to themselves ‘become scientists’ in a sense, to gain the knowledge that was not readily available to them. It was with that knowledge that they were able to band together and attempt to make change. The documentary opens with a protest, a protest that demonstrates the power of the collective many in possession of the necessary knowledge. The prominent activists are able to use their knowledge in order to move forward with the cause.

I was also able to relate Foucault to the individual’s that had limited their knowledge. The segment that discussed the Catholic Church’s ban on the use of condoms due to the fact that they believed it would only spread the AIDS virus further and faster. The officials of the Catholic Church already harbor power and influence but it is their lack of knowledge on the AIDS virus and the benefits of contraceptives that will grant a greater impact. The lack of knowledge or lack of understanding seems to warrant an uneducated power. This still relates to Foucault but it toys with his ‘Rule of Immanence’. Upon first reading it, I had only interpreted that power and knowledge were linked, but in fact the lack thereof is just as connected to power. The Cardinals and other officials that decreed that the use of condoms would further the AIDS epidemic, is a power influence upon their followers as well as an ill informed scare tactic. They manipulated their power by combining their lack of knowledge and understanding with their own opinions, assumptions, and perceptions.

The above are my opinions, with no intent to offend. The documentary got me a little heated J

The Plague Isn't Over.

In the documentary, 'How To Survive A Plague,' we see the struggle to curb the AIDS epidemic in the 80's and 90's.  While this is a film about a lack of power and the related struggle, the individuals whose role is central to the development have more power and a louder voice than those who suffer disproportionately from HIV/AIDS and may not have access to health care, education, or a political voice; namely people of color.  That being said, when considering the question of power, it is important to also consider the notion of relativity.  Foucault’s idea that power is in constant motion and nearly impossible to pinpoint is clear here.  There are instances where politicians hold power, but then become subject to the power of activists demanding action, who are subsequently juggling power within their own movement, and so on.  What is also clear, however, is that those with power are almost always white and overwhelmingly male, which are only two of the issues brought up by the film.  Even the split within ACT UP and the formation of TAG highlights education-level and political literacy, both of which are further complicated by race, class, and gender.

The dominant group within the gay and lesbian community argues, correctly, that the need for medical research and care affects virtually every individual within all facets of the community.  However, their claim that it would or should reach everyone who could benefit from the medications and research is misguided.  By fighting for something that only ends up benefiting the top, those who do not feel the benefits are thus comparably worse off.  That is to say, that even though the white men in the film claim to be fighting for the wellbeing of everyone suffering, nearly every one all but stopped fighting for justice once the drugs were available and affordable enough for them to access, leaving millions of others without them. 

The end of the film treated the struggles enacted by these men and their survival as the only important piece of the wider AIDS awareness movement.  The acknowledgement of the millions who are still infected but unable to access treatment seemed like only an afterthought.  I in no way mean to minimize the efforts and struggles of the AIDS activists in this film, but rather point out that this is only one piece of the picture--the piece that is all too commonly the one that is made visible or acknowledged.  Their centrality within the struggle negates and invisibilizes non-white, non-male struggles and acts of resistance,   whereby “differences are implied in it but then simply taken for granted or even covered over” (De Lauretis, 1991).   I would argue that Foucault might very well point out that while some individuals and communities did and do benefit from the work shown in this film, their actions did not fundamentally challenge power.  Power changed hands and showed its face in different ways, but it was not destabilized.

As I mentioned, the work of these activists should not be discounted.  Their actions have undoubtedly impacted my life and the lives of millions, my loved ones included, and for that I am grateful.  It should, however, be only the beginning of a continued and multidimensional fight.

ᏏᏲ ᏂᎦᏛ/Hello everyone! Welcome to our blog!

I want to frame the discussion about How to Survive a Plague a bit as you watch the film and develop your responses to it. I think this is a really useful film in order to have a better understanding of some of the political contexts from which queer theory emerged. De Lauetis mentions the AIDS crisis specifically, for instance. And, it's important to know that Foucault died of AIDS-related illnesses.

When I say "use De Lauretis and Foucault as a lens" to respond to the film, if it's helpful, think of it this way: What story does Foucault tell about the world works? What story does De Lauretis tell? What do these stories tell us about the story the film tells?  What stories, then, would Foucault and De Lauretis tell about this film if they were writing about it? Some guiding questions that might be helpful as you think about the film:

About the film: What are the filmmakers doing? Who is privileged in their story? What does the film do to intervene in and/or perpetuate systems of oppression? 

About the events: Where is power? Where is resistance? How do they circulate and move? How is bio-power (Foucault) related to these issues?

These aren't the only things you can talk about, but if it's useful to use these questions to start writing, please make use of them.

ᏩᏙ/Thanks!

ᏉᎵ